It was as though a bomb had gone off.

In an extraordinary statement at last week’s Council meeting, Mayor Ferguson advised the public that the County had entered into a legally binding agreement with Picton Terminals, precluding any public consultation or comment, even a normal vote to approve the deal.

“This evening, we were informed by our legal counsel that the offer Council agreed to June 25 was extended to Picton Terminals and has been accepted,” he said.

“This was not the news I was either expecting or wanted to deliver,” said the Mayor, who voted against making the offer, along with Councillors Hirsch, Maynard, Prinzen, St-Jean, and MacNaughton.

He then turned the floor over to the County’s attorney, Sarah Viau, who told a full visitors’ gallery that in approving the June 25 motion, “Council agreed upon terms of settlement and directed settlement on that basis. At that time those terms of settlement were a legally binding commitment made by Council.”

“They were accepted in their entirety without any change, and so Council does not have the ability to alter the terms.”

“I know there are ten registered deputations as well as comments from the audience,” she continued,  “so I would like to give some information and context in light of those deputations.” She then explained that they would not be taken into account.

“The agreement comes to the next Council meeting, in August, when there will be a copy of the executed minutes of settlement, the bylaw implementing them, and contextual information as to the terms,” she concluded. The vote then will be pro forma, to ratify a done deal.

The news shocked and visibly angered members of the audience. Deputations and comments proceeded at the invitation of the Mayor.

“Shame on you, those who voted to pursue a settlement after just last year moving to take the case to court,” said U.S. attorney Ryan Wallach, who has followed the case for years, and lives on Picton Bay directly across from the Terminals.  

“I disagree with the legal advice your counsel has provided because settlement agreements are not binding commitments, especially when they have to be voted on by the Council and the court has to sign off on them,” he told Councillors.

Mr. Wallach also noted that the County was free to settle out of court with Picton Terminals at any time that it chose. To do so before the company made its case in a court of law, where its arguments would face legal scrutiny, was premature.

Robert Sweet, President of the Picton Golf and Country Club, spoke on behalf of its 500 members, who endured, he said, “incessant noise” from both the blasting associated with rock quarrying and the crescendo of limestone blocks dropping onto waiting barges. He worried increased container ship activity in the port would jeopardize revenues for The View, the club’s beloved restaurant, which depends on quiet enjoyment of Picton Bay’s “beautiful vistas.” The Club is a 117-year old institution, with an 18-hole Championship golf course that is a major tourist attraction. It employs 30 people and generates substantial revenue for the County — unlike Picton Terminals. 

“If the County settles, I wonder, will this company abide by the laws or continue to flout the law? We trust our elected officials will ensure our concerns are addressed.”

Threaded through the comments were worries about health threats. David Mackinnon opened by noting, “I’ve spent half my life in healthcare and I believe Picton Terminals, in that location, on a municipal water reservoir, is a health hazard, and will be for many more years to come.” Others complained of being forced to breathe possibly toxic dust, a constant byproduct of Terminal activities. 

Mr. Mackinnon also addressed the only reason the public has heard for Council’s decision to settle with Picton Terminals out of court: worries about legal expenses, estimated at $400,000.  

”Those expenses might come to seem minor,” he said. Many noted those whose properties are affected by the noise, dust and light pollution of the rock quarrying at the Terminals, never mind the traffic associated with international container shipping, will launch a class action suit against the County once the bylaw passes on the basis of diminished property values. They could also apply to MPAC for a reduced property tax assessment, diminishing County revenues year after year.

“I also wonder about passing a bylaw without a provision
for substantial public conversation on it, and
not seeking a second opinion on 
such a serious legal matter. 
Why ignore the 
2018 Superior Court decision 
that did not permit container storage or traffic 
at Picton Terminals?” 

David MacKinnon

So far, the public has heard the Terminals claims it is a port and therefore federally regulated by the Canada Marine Act. A number of deputants noted that position would not hold up in court. The Terminals is not included on any list of federally regulated ports. 

“Picton Bay is an incredible freshwater resource. Our job is to protect it for present and future generations,” concluded Mr. MacKinnon.

A Tourist Destination

“The value of tourism to this community cannot be overstated,” said Susan Helstab, an executive in the tourism industry for 25 years as head of sales and marketing for The Four Seasons resorts. “We must protect the reasons why 300,000 loyal visitors come here year after year.”

She noted the County had collected $1.5 million in MAT revenue in 2023 alone.

“Industrial-scale activity is incompatible with the reasons why people want come here. They seek a pristine, quiet, natural environment free of noise, air, and light pollution.”

What would happen, she asked, if a spill in the bay contaminated the drinking water for a second time? “It won’t take much for PEC to become tarnished, struck off the list of desirable places to visit. Forever. There are way too many other travel options — in Ontario alone. The hit to the economy would be unrecoverable. 

“There is so much at risk.”

Debra Marshall of The White Chapel said the centuries-old heritage building, an 1809 pioneer Methodist Chapel and Cemetery, is directly across White Chapel Road from the gates of Picton Terminals. 

The designated heritage building is being destroyed in two ways. Constant truck traffic and rock quarrying along White Chapel Road create vibrations that disturb its foundations, while the Chapel’s key source of funds, the fees it can exact as a historic venue for weddings and other celebrations, are under threat from the heavy industry just across the road.

“Nobody has consulted us about this heritage asset,” she noted, so it cannot have been included in the terms of the settlement.

“I am extremely disappointed that Council has neglected its obligation to protect heritage properties,” she said.

Liz Driver, the president of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario’s PEC branch, echoed the concern over the neglect of The White Chapel. 

“The Provincial Policy Statement says Council must attend to the conservation of protected properties. Designated heritage structures must be considered in municipal planning.

“This is the first methodist meeting house in the County. It is the longest continuously operating chapel in Ontario. For 213 years, it has stood as a symbol of community continuity. Yet it was totally neglected in this settlement.”

Despite all of this, CAO Marcia Wallace affirmed her confidence in Council’s decision.

“Council has taken into account community members’ concerns every step along the way,” she told the Gazette via email after the meeting. 

“The municipality has attempted to address the widest range of community concerns, some of which would not be possible through litigation. 

“The County of Prince Edward has done its best to hold Picton Terminals accountable within the authority it has as a municipality.” 

The agreement the County has reached with the Terminals will not be made available to the public until three days before the next Council meeting, August 27.